Teacher Training and Competences for Effective CLIL Teaching in
suggests relating the concepts of different subjects to improve the effectiveness of learning.
In Europe, researchers designed an observation tool that tested effective CLIL teaching performance (de Graaf et al., 2007), and provided significant recommendations for L2 pedagogy in CLIL. The researchers found that effective pedagogical approaches related to content-based teaching and task-based language teaching are beneficial to both, CLIL teachers and language teachers. The study (de Graaf et al., 2007: 620) reports five main indicators for effective teaching performance: a) 'Exposure to input at a challenging level' by carefully selecting authentic materials, which are adapted to learners, and by scaffolding the content and language through body language and visual aids. b) 'Meaning focused processing' by encouraging learners to ask for new vocabulary, and to provide corrective feedback either explicitly or implicitly when meanings are wrongly identified. c) 'Form-focused processing' by using recasts or confirmation checks although it is not reported that teachers used explicit form-focused instruction by giving explanations about rules. d) Output by means of interaction. e) Use of 'compensation strategies'.
Teacher Training in Argentina
The lack of CLIL teacher-training programmes in Argentina suggests that the majority of teachers working in bilingual institutions may be ill-equipped to do their job adequately. In agreement with Navés and Muñoz (1999), teachers are often competent in the foreign language, but have no specific training in content subjects. In fact, they lack the theoretical and methodological background to plan content lessons, and to gather, adapt or design teaching materials. This often makes them conclude that they do not qualify for a job at bilingual institutions.
Their teaching competences are not completely developed and as a result, they feel they are invading other teachers' fields. Therefore, university and tertiary education should run courses within the curriculum, which include theoretical and methodological aspects of CLIL teaching.
CLIL focuses both on content and language learning, so its implementation requires approaches, methodologies, teaching and learning strategies that differ completely from traditional foreign language repertoires (Coyle, 1999).
Unfortunately, there is no developed theory on which methodologies are based
for all learning environments; therefore, it becomes necessary for this training programme to follow some guiding principles, which are essential for bilingualism and second language acquisition.
CLIL Teacher Competences in Argentina – Pre-Service and In-Service Teacher Training
Language-based competences
CLIL teachers in Argentina should have a good command of the English language and resort to L1 with care. In fact, in the early stages of learning English, teachers should allow students to use code-switching because this is a natural communication strategy. Teachers must be flexible enough to adapt their instructional support in order to promote language learning, so their main concern should be to scaffold learners on their way towards becoming competent in linguistic and non-linguistic content subjects. Learners always need to have access to spontaneous speech in an interactive context (Pavesi et al., 2001; Marsh, 2002).
Theoretical competences
Newly qualified teachers should have a thorough knowledge of the theories and models which constitute the foundation of content and language learning.
Taking into account the cognitive demands that content learning implies, Mohan (1986) proposes a model for the organization of the curriculum based on a knowledge framework which is conducive to the development of communication, thinking and language. Mohan (1986) relates communication and thinking processes involving classification, principles and evaluation, which are analyzed for their language demands. To develop content and language according to this model, teachers guide students in their transition from experiential learning (contextualized and concrete) to expository learning (decontextualized and abstract). This model also puts long-term and short-term planning into practice, and requires linguistic, content and learning progression. It should be noted that Pavesi et al. (2001) address some of the teacher competences suggested in Mohan's (1986) model.
Teachers also need to become acquainted with the significance of
incorporating cognitively demanding tasks (Coyle, 1999), and with Cummins and Swain's model (1986) which plots context-embedded and context-reduced tasks against those that require either high cognitive or low cognitive demand.
Moreover, teachers need to know about Skehan's (1999) findings regarding three aspects of learner performance: fluency, accuracy and complexity. Skehan believes that tasks contribute to foster the development of these three aspects of performance; however, it becomes impossible for a single task to accomplish the three goals owing to the limitations of the human information processing system.
Consequently, learners have to compromise between the three dimensions of the task (fluency, accuracy and complexity). Empirical evidence shown in Skehan (1999) suggests that complexity comes only at the cost of decreased fluency and accuracy. If students concentrate on the meanings they want to convey, they can attain fluency in speaking although they are bound to make mistakes in grammar, pronunciation or vocabulary. On the other hand, if they concentrate on getting their grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary right, their fluency decreases. If learners are provided with fluency tasks, their accuracy in speaking and writing will develop relatively slowly. Conversely, if learners concentrate on accuracy exercises, their fluency will probably fail to develop satisfactorily. Skehan (1999) points out that fluency, accuracy and complexity must be carefully considered for task design and task sequencing.
De Graaf et al. (2007) reported that teachers did not use explicit form-focused processing by giving rule explanations; however, the knowledge of FonF techniques is an important theoretical competence which is included in this training programme. Doughty and Williams (1998) take into account the significant differences between explicit and implicit knowledge and present two pedagogical approaches. On one hand, they propose both explicit teaching directing learners' attention towards the target forms, and speaking overtly about those forms. On the other hand, they propose implicit focus on form in order “to attract learner's attention and to avoid metalinguistic discussion, always minimizing any interruption to the communication of meaning” (Doughty and Williams, 1998:
232). It is important to remark that all types of FonF instruction (explicit or implicit) should be adjusted according to age, language proficiency and the characteristics of linguistic features.
Methodological competences
The methodological competences proposed in this work include teaching and learning strategies, learning styles and instruction in different aspects of teaching and planning.
Teaching strategies
The teaching strategies for this training programme (Snow, 1998 cited in Coyle, 1999) were selected and adapted to facilitate adjustments in teaching styles.
Other strategies were added as a result of class observation in bilingual schools.
The selection includes:
?Linking the abstract to the concrete
?Support of compensation strategies
?Exploiting world knowledge
?Using realia and visuals
?Comprehension checks
?Focus on form (presentation of grammar point, phonic, lexis)
?Paraphrasing, repeating, giving cues
?Demonstrating, outlining
?Scaffolding
?Using an interactive approach
?Promoting study skills
?Encouraging vocabulary lists
?Teaching language related skills
?Giving instructions clearly
?Describing tasks accurately
?Sequencing tasks
?Maintaining learners' engagement in tasks
?Making input comprehensible and context embedded Learning strategies
O'Malley and Chamot (1994) devised the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) intended mainly for upper elementary secondary schools. This instructional model prepares ESL students for academic achievement, language development and explicit instruction in learning strategies (cognitive, metacognitive and social / affective). CLIL teachers should train
students in the use of these strategies which are very important because they constitute the building blocks that support the cognitive processes leading to learning. Strategies can help students improve their communicative competence, develop the target language for learning content subjects, and become independent learners. CALLA is effective not only in teaching science, where teachers can use hands-on learning activities that provide contextual support, but also in teaching mathematics, which has a more restricted language register than science. The key to successfully implementing a similar approach in a CLIL environment depends on extensive teacher training and professional development as well as on increasing expertise in learning strategies instruction.
Learning styles
Schools find it difficult to adapt to different learning styles for teaching language and content subjects; therefore, they adopt a unique profile that must suit classes with more than thirty students (Marsh, 2000). When teachers know their students' learning styles, they use appropriate approaches which result in equity and success for more learners. Applying assessment instruments like Kinsella's (1995) Perceptual Learning Strengths Survey and Classroom Work Style Survey, educators can better appreciate how students understand, organize and retain experiences. CLIL training programmes should contribute to raise teachers' awareness of the significance of implementing learning styles preferences in the classroom not to stigmatize learners, but to empower them in a variety of contexts and tasks.
CLIL Teacher Training in Teaching and Planning
In addition to language, theoretical and methodological competences, CLIL teachers must be instructed in the following aspects:
?development of the knowledge, vocabulary and skills in teaching mathematics, science, social studies and other content subjects, which are part of the curriculum in bilingual schools,
?lesson observation in bilingual institutions to master subject specific skills, vocabulary and teacher-talk, and to elaborate observation sheets focused on these topics,
?plenary discussions based on participants' experience and observation sheets,
?? planning content-subjects,
?? working with a variety of textbooks and teaching materials suitable for CLlL (attention must be paid to the relation of the subject content and the background knowledge of the target language community),
?? working with authentic and adapted material,
?? using information technology,
?? using interdisciplinarity to work cooperatively with L1 subject teachers,
?? preparing micro-teaching of peers with feedback, which takes the form of analysis and discussion,
?? teaching at a selected school,
?? trainees' assessment by the school and tertiary or university teachers/supervisors.
Concluding remarks
CLIL is an educational approach with a strong impact on language learning. It has become a powerful tool and a motivating force to learn, which offers a natural situation for learning language and content subjects. In some countries, teacher training for CLIL is already available; however, in Argentina, specialized teaching training courses need to be developed. In this work, pre- service and in-service teacher training for CLIL is proposed for the development of the theoretical and methodological competences required for effective CLIL teaching.
References
Coyle, Do (1999). Students in content and language integrated contexts: Planning for effective classrooms. In, J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a Foreign Language: Models, Methods and Outcomes. Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT). London:
England.
Cummins, J. and M. Swain (1986). Bilingualism in Education: Theory, Research and Policy. London:
Longman.
Doughty C. & Williams, J. (Eds.) (1998). Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
de Graaf, R., Koopman, G., Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol.: 10, N° 5, pp. 603-624.
Kinsella, K. (1995). Understanding and empowering diverse learners in the ESL classroom. In J.M. Reid, Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. U.S.A. : Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
O'Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A. U. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. U.S.A: Addison–Wesley Publishing Company.
Marsh, D. (2000). Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages. (Eds.) D. Marsh & G. Langé.
Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Retrieved April15th, 2008 at http://www.clilcompendium.com/1uk.pdf
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/ EMILE-The European Dimension. Action, Trends and Foresight Potential.
Contract DG/EAC: European Commission. (Ed.) D. Marsh. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Retrieved April 18 , 2008 atth
http://www.phkarlsruhe.de/cms/fileadmin/user_upload/dozenten/schlemminger/enseig nement_bilingue/Marsh-CLIL-EMILE.pdf
Mohan, B. (1986). Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Muñoz, C. (2002). Relevance and Potential of CLIL. In D.Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/ EMILE-The European Dimension. Action, Trends and Foresight Potential. Contract DG/EAC: European Commission.
Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Retrieved April 18 , 2008 atth
http://www.phkarlsruhe.de/cms/fileadmin/user_upload/dozenten/schlemminger/enseig nement_bilingue/Marsh-CLIL-EMILE.pdf
Navés, T. & Muñoz, C. (1999). CLIL experiences in Spain. In Marsh, D. & Langé, G. (Eds.). Implementing Content and Language Integrated Learning. Jyväskylä: Finland.
Pavesi, M.,Bertocchi, D. , Hofmanová, M. & Kasianka, M. (2001). Teaching Through a Foreign Language.
A Guide to Teachers and Schools to Using Foreign Languages in Content Teaching. (Ed.) G.
Langé.
Skehan, P. (1999). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.Oxford: Oxford University Press.